Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:29, 27 March 2019

Vidyut Kale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this person is not enough notable, also the article is not written within WP:NPOV encyclopedia format. it's more like someone telling a journey of her. also, the sources cited are most of them are not reliable to the information. 'ShUbHaM XTalkᗙ 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been covered by multiple surces, such as New York Times and Times of India. WP:NPOV can be worked upon. SerTanmay (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While being "covered my multiple sources" is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to establish notability in and of itself. WP:BIO requires that a subject must have received "significant coverage" in "reliable secondary sources" that are "independent" of the subject. In this case, the subject has not received coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in any sense. The NYT article, for example, includes quotes from Kale in the context of another subject altogether (domestic abuse). This means that while Kale is mentioned transitorily, she is not the subject of the coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable (WP:BEFORE), the other issues should be resolved by AfD is not for cleaning up articles --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Struck the nomination, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Substantive and in-depth coverage is lacking in the sources produced above, including the NYT article and Times of India. Her primary claim to fame seems to be creation of spoof sites on two Indian politicians. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet basic WP:GNG although New York Times article is a good reference, I do not think it is enough. Peter303x (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240516020621[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia is not a collectioon of random information, nor a forum for puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she does meet WP:GNG. The Times of India, India Today and Femina sources all have significant coverage of her and her work, and the LiveMint, Telegraph, and New York Times sources add more coverage of her, which also combines to demonstrate her notability, per WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, on sources: The New York Times article is about domestic violence, in general, in India and the subject is name dropped once, in a side note about refuges. The Telegraph piece is about women who blog in India, and has about a dozen of them, one of whom is the subject; Times of India has a report titled "The real housewives of Twitter", with two women in it, one of whom is Kale; LiveMint contains an advocacy piece by the so-called "Centre for Internet and Society, Knowledge Commons and the Internet Democracy Project", featuring Kale; then, there's a portrait by the feminist blog Femina. On whether these sources make a subject notable per WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG I'll leave others to comment; I already posted up my suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gnome. I concur with your opinion and came to the same conclusion myself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the NYT times article mentions her name twice, and she is not "name checked", she is quoted and is clearly one of the main subjects of the article? India Today has other articles on her where she is the subject India Today; why did you not quote these? You are not giving the subject a fair hearing. Britishfinance (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came to delete but having read the references (which are mostly WP:RS and are on her as subject), found more (India Today India Today Times of India), she does at least technically meet WP:GNG. She could possibly make the technical case for WP:NAUTHOR with this: Amazon, given her blog (and thus her book) are widely covered. And remember, these are just the online English sources on her, I have not been able to search non-English soures on her. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She also appears in this book on Global Journalism and the Coverage of "Third World" Development regarding her interviews: [1]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) also consider her endorsement important: [2] [3]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She also appears to be used as a commentator in mainstream RS on Indian politics: The Friday Times [4]. Britishfinance (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She was also profiled in a journal by the highly ranked Observer Research Foundation (link on Scholar) [5]. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean per WP:JNN. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources in news articles, books to make it start class. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are numerous sources, but are they sufficient to pass the muster under WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Most of these sources make a transitory mention regarding the subject, in others she is not even the subject of focus. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not true, several refs have been given above where she is the main subject of the piece; this is not helpful. Britishfinance (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington that you have added a WP:OR tag to the lede beside two Tier 1 refs on her, the New York Times and Asia's 5th-ranked think tank, Observer Research Foundation; both commenting on what the lede states about her exposure of domestic abuse. That is a very unfair treatment of the subject (and the editors who improved this article). Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert established users without discussing the issue on the talk page. The lead section of the article is a total misrepresentation of the sources and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You stuck an ^{[original research?]} tag beside two Tier 1 refs (NYT and ORF) in the lede withtout any Talk Page discussion. That is not collaborative, that is POV. Your POV "Red-Tick" list below also shows just how strong your POV is in this area. This is an Indian Hindi woman whose English-refs alone, meet WP GNG. We haven't even gotton to her Indian-RS. How many Indian-language BLPs have this amount of English-RS Refs in their BLPs?Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck an {{OR}} template there for the simple reason that the lead section *does not say* what the sources have been saying. This is either a misrepresentation on the part of the editor who made those changes to the lead section, *or* it's original research not backed by reliable, secondary sources. Have you actually read what the NYT and ORF sources say? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

I thought it would be a good idea to put up an analysis of the citations contained in the article, the context in which they have been used, and some commentary on whether they are pertinent with regards to establishing the notability of the subject concerned.

Femina (India), or femina.in^[6]: The subject has received significant coverage in this publication, is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source. Femina magazine is owned by the Times Group, and is a publication that exercises editorial control, has a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the subject of the biography. Note: The article misspells the URL of the website as aamjanta.com instead of aamjanata.com, which is the actual URL. Y
The New York Times^[7]: The subject of this NYT article is "domestic abuse in India", and Kale is not the subject of this article. She is quoted in the article twice and is described as a "a corporate trainer and blogger who has written extensively about witnessing domestic violence in her family as a child, and then confronting abuse — emotional, financial and sexual — in her own marriage." This is a transitory reference at best, and in the context of a different subject of discussion. Moreover, the lead section of the article of the WP biography relies on the NYT article to make an overblown claim that Kale is "widely recognized" for her "work exposing domestic abuse in Indian families". N
Observer Research Foundation^[8]: The ORF Issue brief makes three transitory reference to Kale, in an article that primarily covers "Gender and Identity on Social Media". Again, Kale is not the primary subject of the article, nor does she receive coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in this case. As with NYT, this article has been erroneously(?) relied upon to make the same overblown claim used to make overstated claim as the one in the lead section ("Vidyut Kale, a stay-at-home mother and an online activist from Maharashtra, often tweets about the domestic abuse which she says she suffers at the hands of her husband. She faces as much abuse for her radical socio-political views as she gets for washing her dirty linen in public"). N
The Times of India^[9]: This is a reliable source and its coverage on Kale is significant in my view. However, the Times of India and Femina magazine are both owned by the same publisher, that is, The Times Group. Therefore, multiple articles in publications with the same owner, while reliable sources, may not count twice towards proving the notability of a subject. N
Livemint^[10]: While Livemint is a reliable source, Kale is not the primary subject of the article which discusses free speech on the Internet. The subject is quoted but mentioned in a non-substantive, transitory sense. Note: The article misspells the URL of the subject's website as aamjanta.com, instead of aamjanata.com.N
India Today^[11][12]: India Today is generally considered to be a reliable source, and the coverage is significant in both cases. It will not be counted twice, however, in the context of proving the notability of the subject.Y
The Times of India^[13]: The primary subject of the article is having a "Pirate Party" in India. Kale is quoted in the article, but does not receive coverage that can be characterized as significant in the article. Even if the coverage were to be considered significant, as stated above, the Times of India is owned by The Times Group and hence will not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject more than once.N
The Friday Times^[14]: This is not a reliable source and should not be used in article space on WP.N
The Economic Times^[15]: A tweet by Kale is quoted in the article, and this does not constitute significant coverage. Moreover, this publication is owned by The Times Group and should not count twice towards proving the notability of the subject.N
The Telegraph (Calcutta)^[16]: While the Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, the article covers about a dozen Twitter celebrities, and while Kale is included in the list of Twitter celebrities, and also quoted, the coverage is non-significant.N

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to the above in more detail later as I don't have time today. Many of the above POV "Red-Ticks" conflict directly with the content of the articles themselves (e.g. she is one of two people profiled in the NYT article which is about them; she is a material section of the ORF report); however, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, the above list (which is not all refs), does highlight just how many references this Indian Hindi female subject has in English-WP:RS.

And note that this is both a woman and one who has embarrassed the Indian political establishment - E.g. she is off-limits for many Indian RS. Can add Indian-language RS for her (which can be translated), if needed. Would be a shame to lose this interesting BLP based on the above POV "Red-Tick" technique. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misrepresenting sources. The NYT article begins by mentioning Nita Bhalla and Meena Kandasamy, whose stories "helped to underline the reality of domestic violence in India". Kale is mentioned much later as a "corporate trainer and blogger". And no, she's not a "material section" of the ORF report, which can be discerned by anyone at a "COMMONSENSE" level. I have no personal interest in the subject and no dog in the race, and I do not really care whether this article stays or not. I am only interested in ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability are followed. On the other hand, as the primary author of the article who seems to have spent considerable energy in its development, you appear to be emotionally invested in making sure it stays. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just making this up. I am not the author of this BLP and never saw it before this AfD. I do strongly believe in “improving” WP by “adding” good RS for cases that I think are interesting to our readers (which I do at AfD per WP:HEY). You seem to have a different objective. Britishfinance (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making this up? Here is a link documenting 59 revisions made by your account to this biographical article (before my edit today) since 23 March 2019. You may have come across this after it was nominated for deletion, but you have made 63 edits in total to this article and added 6,108 bytes worth of text since then, which is much more than any other user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the article author - as with your POV "Red Links", you are trying to spin a view. While you have being filling up AfD, I have added more links to cover her journalism with The Quint [17], and with India Today's DailyO by Vidyut Kale. I have also noted her contribution to Palagummi Sainath's archive. Sorry, I know this does not fit with your agenda. I will get to her Hindi language refs in the next few days. Britishfinance (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Okay. Primary sources are problematic. Please read WP:PRIMARY, especially the Policy part. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they are being used to demonstrate that she is a journalist for several WP-notable Indian news outlets. There are thousands of WP:BLPs on journalists that list/quote the subject's primary work as evidence (e.g. New York Times David Brooks (commentator)). This AfD is attracting odd comments; dispiriting stuff. Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by the subject herself are primary sources and may be used to support assertions regarding the subject's views on different issues. However, they cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added material (both primary and secondary), on her involvement with the 2013 United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development working group on governance for digital media. Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also found coverage on her 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) [18]. Britishfinance (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ::*Articles written by the subject herself are primary sources and may be used to support assertions regarding the subject's views on different issues.  However, they cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black">Nearly Headless Nick</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black" title="Contributions">{c}</span>]] 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' Added material (both primary and secondary), on her involvement with the 2013 [[United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development]] working group on governance for digital media. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' Also found coverage on her 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) [http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Namrata_Chakraborty_-_Article_for_ijlljs_vol_3_issue_3.pdf]. [[User:Britishfinance|Britishfinance]] ([[User talk:Britishfinance|talk]]) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)